Anand's FEAR Article Up

[lifeguard1999]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
I can see that the retail version is more optimised than the demo, but a single 7800GTX pumping out only 56 FPS @ 1024x768 with 4xAA/8xAF is still really bad IMO, considering that it is the fastest card that you can buy. Increase the res further to 1600x1200 (AA and AF on) not even a single card can make the game playable. How ridiculous.

It just gives ATI and NVidia something to shoot for, and something for us to spend more money on.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Actually, I have been playing at 1280x1024 with 2xAA 8xAF Soft Shadows ON Volumetric Lights ON and everything set to maximum that can be set to maximum.

softshadows does not work with fsaa on....

Are you serious?!? WTF is that? I'll try disabling AA to see if my character casts a soft shadow instead of the paper cutout one. Dunno how I missed that.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Actually, I have been playing at 1280x1024 with 2xAA 8xAF Soft Shadows ON Volumetric Lights ON and everything set to maximum that can be set to maximum.

softshadows does not work with fsaa on....

Are you serious?!? WTF is that? I'll try disabling AA to see if my character casts a soft shadow instead of the paper cutout one. Dunno how I missed that.

It might look good with AA enabled, but unfortunately as of right now, both soft shadows and AA can't be enabled at the same time. They might allow this in some later patch, but as we've shown by our performance tests, the cost to performance would be almost too great to think about.

 

[Kogan]

Just got the X800XT PE I ordered a while back. Here's some fear benchmarks with the same settings AT used except that I'm using the 5.10 drivers with the ATI card. 1024x768 resolution (it won't let me pick 1280x1024 for some reason)

6800nu
48fps (no aa/af)
25fps (aa/af)

- little bit faster than the 6600gt benched in the review, as expected.

x800xtpe
68fps (no aa/af)
37fps (aa/af)

- little bit faster than the 6800gt. May be better with the beta driver.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I may pick this game up afterall. The results show an average of 53 fps with a GTX at 16x12 with no aa/af and no soft shadows. That's where I would like to play the game. I'm a little worried though, because while I also have 2GB of ram, my cpu is a Pentium 630. The reviews look good, so I'll give it a try I guess.

The numbers AT got, wont be realistic in-game numbers. They will be lower.

edit;

Originally posted by: Kogan
Man, I would have liked to have seen an x800xt benched in the article.. It's important to us AGP users since that's one of the fastest cards we can upgrade to

FS did a mainstream article. They usually do two, mainstream and highend. Highend isnt up yet.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/fear_performance_mainstream/default.asp

 

[Munky]

Did softshadows work with AA in the demo? I think I remember being able to enable both at the same time. Also, how do the shadows look compared to the demo? If they're worse in the release version, that that would most likely be one of their 'optimizations', and would explain why the 7-series is more competitive now.

 

[michal1980]

Originally posted by: munky
Did softshadows work with AA in the demo? I think I remember being able to enable both at the same time. Also, how do the shadows look compared to the demo? If they're worse in the release version, that that would most likely be one of their 'optimizations', and would explain why the 7-series is more competitive now.

some people just lack logic.

for example anands review shows the 7-series competive when SOFTSHADOWS ARE OFF!!!!!!!!.
so therefore the softsadow would have NO impact on either the ati or the NV card. both the GTX and 1800xt are neck and neck with shadows OFF or ON.

so take your fanboi-isms to a dumber thread.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Wow... this is really sad that you need dual 7800s in order to be able to play the game at 16x12 with AA and AF. I hope they can improve the perfomance eventually.

Wow again - just checked some benchmarks (anandtech) and found that on a 7800 GTX:

Doom3 is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

HL2 is about 4x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

BF2 is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

Farcry is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa

I think these guys need to do a much better job with their coding - all of the games above look nearly as good but have at least 2x the framerates.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Wow... this is really sad that you need dual 7800s in order to be able to play the game at 16x12 with AA and AF. I hope they can improve the perfomance eventually.

Wow again - just checked some benchmarks (anandtech) and found that on a 7800 GTX:

Doom3 is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

HL2 is about 4x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

BF2 is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

Farcry is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa

I think these guys need to do a much better job with their coding - all of the games above look nearly as good but have at least 2x the framerates.

I agree 100%. I just did some benchmarking of the MP demo to post my results in another thread, and my 6800GT (at Ultra speeds) is really only playable at 1024x768, and of course I can't even think about enabling AA. Glancing at the numbers in this latest article, it looks like they're almost exactly in line with the numbers I'm already getting, so I don't think there will be much of a performance boost if I buy the full game.

I'm also of the opinion that the graphics are not that great to justify a 50% or more framerate cut compared to just about anything else out there (or, alternately, to justify a drop from 1680x1050 all the way down to 1024x768 and sometimes the loss of AA on top of that). They look like decent graphics, nothing more. I've heard that the story and gameplay is good, but at this point I think I'm not going to bother to pick up the full game until I upgrade to an R580 or something next summer....

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl
Dingo, as always you turn this into a flamefest. It's obvious that early benchmarks were not indicative of the true performance of the nVidia cards because they no longer lag behind their equivalent ATi rivals. Is that clear enough? What part of actually reading the article and discussing it did you miss?

Flame-fest? How?

When some one claimed that FEAR would be optimised for GF7 series of cards I questioned that. keys latched on even there just like he did here. :roll: Game is out and it is optimised for all cards not just GF7.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Errr, what thread?

You can search for it.

 

[theMan]

does anyone actually think that this game eats up these expensive cards because the graphics are good? i blame it on crappy software engineering. i certainly dont think the graphics are THAT amazing. hl2 was a great example of a game that had BEAUTIFUL grapics, and even i could max out the settings on my 6600gt. with fear, i have to decide what is better, pixelated, aliased graphics or incredibly low frame rates. i dont know if patches are going to fix this game.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: michal1980

Originally posted by: munky
Did softshadows work with AA in the demo? I think I remember being able to enable both at the same time. Also, how do the shadows look compared to the demo? If they're worse in the release version, that that would most likely be one of their 'optimizations', and would explain why the 7-series is more competitive now.

some people just lack logic.

for example anands review shows the 7-series competive when SOFTSHADOWS ARE OFF!!!!!!!!.
so therefore the softsadow would have NO impact on either the ati or the NV card. both the GTX and 1800xt are neck and neck with shadows OFF or ON.

so take your fanboi-isms to a dumber thread.

Speaking of lack of logic...

Does anand's review show the performance when softshadows AND AA are enabled? NO, because you CANT run em both at the same time. BUT, you could in the demo. So, unless it was a totally arbitrary desicion, the developers must have implemented enough changes in the SS code to warrant such a decision. And that's why I'm asking if the soft shadows look the same in the release as they do in the demo, because if they dont, then it's reasonable to believe this was one of their optimizations. It's a well known fact that when running shader code with branching, the performance difference between the gf7 and the x1x is huge, and one easy way to remedy this 'problem' would be to use simpler code, with possibly different visual outcome. And next time think before you reply to a topic you obviously have very little awareness of.

 

[rahzel]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Actually, I have been playing at 1280x1024 with 2xAA 8xAF Soft Shadows ON Volumetric Lights ON and everything set to maximum that can be set to maximum.

I have Fraps running and I seldom drop below 32fps when there is a lot of action. Usually stays in the 60 to 70 fps range with medium action and often tops out at around 100fps when just walking around. This is with a P43.0E. One thing that is EXTREMELY annoying is the hitching. I had one GB of RAM and my system was using 1.08GB of RAM (mixture of RAM and pagefile) and there was some MAJOR hitching. I stole a GB of RAM out of my other P4 rig and installed it in my main rig for a total of 2GB. Hitching is now very rare if at all. They say the 81.85 beta are supposed to eliminate this problem, but I'm not going near beta's. I'll wait for the full release.

sorry if this has already been brought up, i didnt feel like reading all the pages.

the official 81.85 driver was released today.

 

[Janooo]

I am not sure how to understand the following:

Demo results at 16x12 4xAA/16xAF:

X1800XT - 41.6
7800GTX - 30.4
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=843&pageID=1800

Real game at 16x12 4xAA/8xAF:
X1800XT - 28
7800GTX - 26
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575&p=5

XT went down 33%
GTX went down 14%

It appears they killed XT in order to make it playable on GTX
I know that these are different systems but still I would expect close to 0% for XT and improvements for GTX.

 

[CPlusPlusGeek]

Performance as abysmal as it is, this is definitly the best looking game ever.

 

[michal1980]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: michal1980

Originally posted by: munky
Did softshadows work with AA in the demo? I think I remember being able to enable both at the same time. Also, how do the shadows look compared to the demo? If they're worse in the release version, that that would most likely be one of their 'optimizations', and would explain why the 7-series is more competitive now.

some people just lack logic.

for example anands review shows the 7-series competive when SOFTSHADOWS ARE OFF!!!!!!!!.
so therefore the softsadow would have NO impact on either the ati or the NV card. both the GTX and 1800xt are neck and neck with shadows OFF or ON.

so take your fanboi-isms to a dumber thread.

Speaking of lack of logic...

Does anand's review show the performance when softshadows AND AA are enabled? NO, because you CANT run em both at the same time. BUT, you could in the demo. So, unless it was a totally arbitrary desicion, the developers must have implemented enough changes in the SS code to warrant such a decision. And that's why I'm asking if the soft shadows look the same in the release as they do in the demo, because if they dont, then it's reasonable to believe this was one of their optimizations. It's a well known fact that when running shader code with branching, the performance difference between the gf7 and the x1x is huge, and one easy way to remedy this 'problem' would be to use simpler code, with possibly different visual outcome. And next time think before you reply to a topic you obviously have very little awareness of.

your still missing the point that before the 7 series ran slower then the ati series did period. yet now there even.

 

[bamacre]

Grabbed a copy of FEAR earlier today. Game play is pretty smooth, even on my Pentium 630. Just got my 7800GTX today as well, popped 2GB ram in my new Dell 9100, and got it going.

Retail version 1.01
1600x1200 (no AA, 4X AF)

Min 32 fps
Avg 48 fps
Max 92 fps

00% <25 fps
24% 25-40 fps
76% >40 fps

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Grabbed a copy of FEAR earlier today. Game play is pretty smooth, even on my Pentium 630. Just got my 7800GTX today as well, popped 2GB ram in my new Dell 9100, and got it going.

Retail version 1.01
1600x1200 (no AA, 4X AF)

Min 32 fps
Avg 48 fps
Max 92 fps

00% <25 fps
24% 25-40 fps
76% >40 fps

That's pretty good all things considered!

I'd love to be @ 48fps! Mine:

Retail Version 1.01
1680X1050 (no AA, 16X AF)

X850XT PE @600/615

min 22 fps
avg 36 fps
max 74 fps

5% <25 fps
73% 25-40 fps
22% >40 fps

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Wow... this is really sad that you need dual 7800s in order to be able to play the game at 16x12 with AA and AF. I hope they can improve the perfomance eventually.

Wow again - just checked some benchmarks (anandtech) and found that on a 7800 GTX:

Doom3 is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

HL2 is about 4x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

BF2 is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa,

Farcry is about 2x as fast at 16x12 4aa

I think these guys need to do a much better job with their coding - all of the games above look nearly as good but have at least 2x the framerates.

I agree 100%. I just did some benchmarking of the MP demo to post my results in another thread, and my 6800GT (at Ultra speeds) is really only playable at 1024x768, and of course I can't even think about enabling AA. Glancing at the numbers in this latest article, it looks like they're almost exactly in line with the numbers I'm already getting, so I don't think there will be much of a performance boost if I buy the full game.

I'm also of the opinion that the graphics are not that great to justify a 50% or more framerate cut compared to just about anything else out there (or, alternately, to justify a drop from 1680x1050 all the way down to 1024x768 and sometimes the loss of AA on top of that). They look like decent graphics, nothing more. I've heard that the story and gameplay is good, but at this point I think I'm not going to bother to pick up the full game until I upgrade to an R580 or something next summer....

:thumbsup: personally i am more impressed with the hl2 gfx, and of course the farcry gfx, than FEAR, and the fact that i can have ANY AA in FEAR at 1024 seems crazy, even in farcry i can have AA at maximum settings at 1024...

 

[klah]

Hmmm, less than 40fps with no AA/AF isn't going to cut it. I guess I'll just wait until I have a 9800GT or X3800XL and pick it up from the bargain bin.

 

[Le Québécois]

For everyone Saying FEAR is bad...lousy graphic and run like sh*t....You have to considere that Monolith has never been known for its engine ( even then they are one of the only companie doing their own engine...everyone else use Q3 D3 Unreal engine...) but for the quality of their gamings experience...Shogo,NOLF, AvsP2, NOLF2...all awesome game I would play again and again anyday in contrast to Doom3.

And hek..with do you say the game isn't good looking? I think all of you who say that do so because they fell cheated because of the poor performance they got...hell..every reviews( hardware performance or gameplay reviews...) I have read so far say its the best looking game to date...and I do think they're right.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Le Québécois
For everyone Saying FEAR is bad...lousy graphic and run like sh*t....You have to considere that Monolith has never been known for its engine ( even then they are one of the only companie doing their own engine...everyone else use Q3 D3 Unreal engine...) but for the quality of their gamings experience...Shogo,NOLF, AvsP2, NOLF2...all awesome game I would play again and again anyday in contrast to Doom3.

And hek..with do you say the game isn't good looking? I think all of you who say that do so because they fell cheated because of the poor performance they got...hell..every reviews( hardware performance or gameplay reviews...) I have read so far say its the best looking game to date...and I do think they're right.

I agree, the game does look great. Even the pop cans and such are better detailed than any other game, including the big three that came out last year. I was very impressed by the demo.

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: Le Québécois
For everyone Saying FEAR is bad...lousy graphic and run like sh*t....You have to considere that Monolith has never been known for its engine ( even then they are one of the only companie doing their own engine...everyone else use Q3 D3 Unreal engine...) but for the quality of their gamings experience...Shogo,NOLF, AvsP2, NOLF2...all awesome game I would play again and again anyday in contrast to Doom3.

And hek..with do you say the game isn't good looking? I think all of you who say that do so because they fell cheated because of the poor performance they got...hell..every reviews( hardware performance or gameplay reviews...) I have read so far say its the best looking game to date...and I do think they're right.

Yeah F.E.A.R. looks amazing and it's a great technical achievement and is better than HL2 & FarCry graphically just as Doom 3 was but IMO it simply cannot compare to the lushness of FarCry or the towering metropolic scenery in HL2 . . . so its not that F.E.A.R. doesn't look awesome, because it certainly does, but it would look way better if we were given some more variety in terms of localities . . . A game with a less advanced engine can still look better or be more impressive since there's more to graphics than just the technical aspects . . . (scale, asthetics)

 

[Le Québécois]

Yeah...better variety in the environemt would have been nice...but from what I know...They follow the story...you dont put a horror triller game with level with snow...and anyway...except for HL2...pretty much all the game(FPS) ive played lately take place in the same place from the beginin to the end..think DOOM3 for exemple...

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: Le Québécois
Yeah...better variety in the environemt would have been nice...but from what I know...They follow the story...you dont put a horror triller game with level with snow...and anyway...except for HL2...pretty much all the game(FPS) ive played lately take place in the same place from the beginin to the end..think DOOM3 for exemple...

Yeah that's true but they could still have had more variety while still keeping the horror/thriller theme. I mean deserted industrial areas, deserted office places, rundown urban settings aren't incredibly creative . . .